General Fit Talk General Discussion on the Honda Fit/Jazz.

How in the world is everybody getting 40+MPG?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 12, 2008 | 04:46 PM
  #61  
BlackCobra's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 471
From: Hurst, TX
I already am practicing #'s 2,3,6,7,9,10.
On freeways I dont gun my car and keep it at a steady pace btwn 60-65mph and no faster then 70mph to pass up cars. And for turning off my engine when at a red at a major intersection is a bit much when it is only at most 30seconds. other then that i dont have anything in my car but me and a few loose change, pens and paper. My driving habits are rather conservative. but i will want to increase my tire pressure and maybe that might help a bit more. thanks for your input pcs0snq
 
Old Mar 12, 2008 | 05:07 PM
  #62  
Doc Holliday's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 36
From: Raleigh, NC
Originally Posted by scorpmatt
hate to burst your bubble there doc, but my fit gets over 40mpg going 70-75mph and gets under 40mpg going 60-65mph. stock, auto, sport.
Burst it all you want, I know what works for me with my manual
 
Old Mar 12, 2008 | 05:44 PM
  #63  
BlackCobra's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 471
From: Hurst, TX
maybe i should just putmy car in neutral and push my car where ever i go and get better mileage then everyone here...HAHA
 
Old Mar 12, 2008 | 06:14 PM
  #64  
joe bloggs's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 61
From: UK
according to honda.com :

'The 5-speed automatic Fit gets 27 city/34 highway mpg and the 5-speed automatic Fit Sport gets 27 city/33 highway mpg. Based on 2008 EPA mileage estimates, reflecting new EPA fuel economy methods beginning with 2008 models. Use for comparison purposes only. Do not compare to models before 2008. Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.

In fact, the Fit and the Fit Sport equipped with 5-speed manual transmission both achieve 28 city/34 highway mpg'

If u can get more than the quoted figures then great!
 
Old Mar 12, 2008 | 06:27 PM
  #65  
BlackCobra's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 471
From: Hurst, TX
Originally Posted by joe bloggs
according to honda.com :

'The 5-speed automatic Fit gets 27 city/34 highway mpg and the 5-speed automatic Fit Sport gets 27 city/33 highway mpg. Based on 2008 EPA mileage estimates, reflecting new EPA fuel economy methods beginning with 2008 models. Use for comparison purposes only. Do not compare to models before 2008. Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.

In fact, the Fit and the Fit Sport equipped with 5-speed manual transmission both achieve 28 city/34 highway mpg'

If u can get more than the quoted figures then great!
i understand that but i will not believe that the 2007 will yield better MPG then the 2008. And also both models are identical. even more so reading that everyone is getting such great mileage is seriously frusterating bc i want those figures too and doing everything possible to reach that goal of atleast 35-40mpg.
 

Last edited by BlackCobra; Mar 12, 2008 at 06:29 PM.
Old Mar 12, 2008 | 08:19 PM
  #66  
pcs0snq's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,049
From: lake worth FL
Originally Posted by joe bloggs
according to honda.com :

'The 5-speed automatic Fit gets 27 city/34 highway mpg and the 5-speed automatic Fit Sport gets 27 city/33 highway mpg. Based on 2008 EPA mileage estimates, reflecting new EPA fuel economy methods beginning with 2008 models. Use for comparison purposes only. Do not compare to models before 2008. Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.

In fact, the Fit and the Fit Sport equipped with 5-speed manual transmission both achieve 28 city/34 highway mpg'

If u can get more than the quoted figures then great!
My EPA estimates on my 2008 Fit Sport window sticker said 28/34 and combined 31 for a SMALL WAGON with a scale of 15 to 31
 
Old Mar 13, 2008 | 03:15 AM
  #67  
Snap Fit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,783
From: Torrance, CA
Response in BlueVVV
Originally Posted by Black01

.....Scenario 2:

I drove mix with normal driving and then grandma driving(hypermiling), on neutral while going downhill and was able to get 35.xx mpg.
g-ma and hypermiling are not really one in the same...but you probably know that.

Scenario 3: I tried to hypermile pretty much my entire driving but still mix with normal driving, on neutral while going downhill and only got 34.xxmpg.
Go downhill in 5th, try to only used neutral when you must keep your momentum. Not when gravity is helping you already. Coasting in 5th cuts off the fuel...YAY

Seems like hypermiling is not really for the fit, I think hypermiling are only for hybrid cars....
Well...we already know thats not really the case now dont we
 
Old Mar 13, 2008 | 03:29 AM
  #68  
Snap Fit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,783
From: Torrance, CA
Originally Posted by pip_rocks
well, yes the trans does matter (mine is an auto, so of course 38 mpg is great )

i had an '88 CRX that got well over 40 mpg every fill-up. so 20 years ago they were even more on the ball.
In the US atleast 38 in the Fit is indeed great.

Remember though people that newer cars are by and large much heavier than their previous counterparts and in some cases less aerodynamic. They have to deal with (luckily) much, much more strict emmission standards.
I wish the goverment and auto companies would strive for more (they very easily can) but for now I will try and endorse stuff like the Fit so the word spreads and hopefullly a better trend will start to evolve.
The CRX was way, way more aerodynamic and it was stated to get 50mpg in one of the early brochures. Early minis could get 40-60mpgs with a tiny engine and weighed as much as an empty soda can and probably polluted as much as a bus. I even got about 60mpg once in my 7th gen civic(I wish it had happened more) But there were so many variables.
 
Old Mar 13, 2008 | 03:43 AM
  #69  
Snap Fit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,783
From: Torrance, CA
Originally Posted by BlackCobra
i understand that but i will not believe that the 2007 will yield better MPG then the 2008. And also both models are identical.
yup, the EPA changed the way they rated it for '08 thats why its different. Its only different on paper not in practice. The '08 rating is supposed to be more accurate for both '08 and '07.
 

Last edited by Snap Fit; Mar 13, 2008 at 03:44 AM. Reason: cuz I felt like it...yo!
Old Mar 13, 2008 | 03:58 AM
  #70  
Snap Fit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,783
From: Torrance, CA
So this is what I have observed and have done.

I have not filled my tires with air since I bought the car a few months ago.
I am almost positive it is a bit below the suggested rating and I was and am able to get between 34 and 36 mpg 100% city.

I use CC only on flat areas period! And only if I feel there is little to gain by modulating it myself.

I will give an example of neutral and 5th gear coasting here-
On PCH there are some rather steep hilly sections and once I am at the peak of one I just cruise in 5th with my foot off the gas. when I start going up the hill again or if I dont want to loose as much momentum I go into neutral, then back into 5th for the down hill. I have done this with pretty good success, and it even feels impressive

We have to remember though that none of our commutes are the same. My 7 mile 100% city drive may be more like your highway trip. Maybe there is traffic maybe not...so on and so fourth...
I think we forget that often. Is your commute a million stoplights in a row or a million stoplights and turning at every intersection.

I cant wait to go on the damn freeway again!
 
Old Mar 13, 2008 | 12:23 PM
  #71  
BlackCobra's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 471
From: Hurst, TX
I undersatnd what others have said about EPA and Honda Fit on paper is averaging 29-34mpg and waht you also said, SNAP_FIT, that driving conditions, travel distance, and driving style can vary our MPG....ect, so that is why it range is at 29-34mpg to make up for the differences.

So with this in mind, I ASK AGIAN, how in the heck are alot of people getting above the norm? i guess i have to see it to believeit. like i said, i am averaging only 29-30mpg and im already driving like a granny.

On a side note, when im at half tank im usually getting about 145-165miles and the bottom half of the tank i only get about 100-115miles on the bottom half. Is our tanks shaped like a cone?
 
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 04:43 AM
  #72  
Snap Fit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,783
From: Torrance, CA
Response in blue and red VVV
Originally Posted by BlackCobra
I undersatnd what others have said about EPA and Honda Fit on paper is averaging 29-34mpg and waht you also said, SNAP_FIT, that driving conditions, travel distance, and driving style can vary our MPG....ect, so that is why it range is at 29-34mpg to make up for the differences.
28-34 is not for making up the differences. 28= city average and 34= highway average.


So with this in mind, I ASK AGIAN, how in the heck are alot of people getting above the norm? i guess i have to see it to believeit. like i said, i am averaging only 29-30mpg and im already driving like a granny.
I guess so...
Driving like a granny may not be the best approach for getting better mpgs.

On a side note, when im at half tank im usually getting about 145-165miles and the bottom half of the tank i only get about 100-115miles on the bottom half. Is our tanks shaped like a cone?
HAAAHAA thats funny. Not the gas gauge is not perfectly linear, and it can jump around a bunch. But not much more than most other cars.
There is so much info out now even in this forum and thread that you may just be missing the info that would apply to your particular situations.
Just because some people get 40+ mpg doesnt mean you can. Your conditions may not permit it so readily regardless of how well you observe, practice and master particular techniques.

I seem to get better MPG's by not going super slow, but instead getting to the speed that will alow me to maintain lowerer rpms for longer at the speed limit. I just pulled in at a hair over 36mpg on this tank 100% city, by observing what was previously mentioned.
 
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 09:02 AM
  #73  
nosewitdot's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 484
From: CA
5 Year Member
i averaged a little tiny over 40 mpg when coming home from vegas...the funny thing was, i wasnt trying to save on gas. I was going 90 while using AC, traversing the mountains, and dodging congested lanes, can anybody explain this? I drive a 5MT Fit Sport.
 
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 09:32 AM
  #74  
RichXKU's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 388
From: Amish Paradise, PA
Originally Posted by Snap Fit
I seem to get better MPG's by not going super slow, but instead getting to the speed that will alow me to maintain lowerer rpms for longer at the speed limit.
This is a very good point here. The best thing to do is to accelerate to 5th gear as briskly as possible without bogging between shifts or going into open loop. Since 5th is where max efficiency is achieved (fewest RPM per wheel revolution)
 
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 08:43 PM
  #75  
pcs0snq's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,049
From: lake worth FL
Originally Posted by RichXKU
The best thing to do is to accelerate to 5th gear as briskly as possible without bogging between shifts or going into open loop.
That's not what I have been seeing on mine at all. How did you determine that?
 
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 09:06 PM
  #76  
RichXKU's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 388
From: Amish Paradise, PA
Originally Posted by pcs0snq
That's not what I have been seeing on mine at all. How did you determine that?
It was suggested by the cmpg guys, that dawdling in the lower gears by accelerating too slowly makes things worse. But you've got the SG not me so I can only guess til I get one.
 
Old Mar 14, 2008 | 09:28 PM
  #77  
SmartSizer's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 85
From: U.S.A.
I average about 38MPG, in my '08 Sport 5-Spd, with pretty much any style of driving I do. That's with no AC for the most part, flat roads (Florida), and I'd say 50/50 driving.

During a round-trip to Tallahassee, with one other person in the car - I got 45MPG.

On a trip to Jacksonville, with the car packed 3 adults, two kids, a dog - and luggage (yeah - we all "Fit") - I averaged 42MPG.

I drive "spirited" - I don't don't granny it, and I don't rev it past 4500 RPM usually.

I use a Walmart gift card to get gas, charging it up each time. I simply devide the miles I've driven by 38, then multiply that times the price of gas at the discounted rate (3 cents off per gallon using card) - and I am right on the money each time. The point - my car has faithfully gotten 38 MPG just about every tank.

I'm not sure why some folks are getting less (it actually bothers me). I hope people aren't trying to use premium gas. I'm not an expert, but I think the trick is keeping the engine in the power band during acceleration, which in my car "feels" like 3K-4.5K RPM.
 
Old Mar 15, 2008 | 01:17 PM
  #78  
pcs0snq's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,049
From: lake worth FL
Originally Posted by RichXKU
It was suggested by the cmpg guys, that dawdling in the lower gears by accelerating too slowly makes things worse. But you've got the SG not me so I can only guess til I get one.
Well that's different. The original comment was stated as if it was fact.

I do not have all the examples worked out, but from my results and using some real quantitative details I'd say 60 to 90 sec to go 60 mph is about perfect on my Fit, I could get there in less than 30 and have, but the MPG is worse. I also shift at 2500 to 3500.
************************************************** *****


One other thing on the SG data.
It can take a long time to work off the poor initial start on the car 1st of the day. You are always stating with zero mpg and working up. This may sound totally obvious, but to watch the avg work, it's interesting how long it can take.
 

Last edited by pcs0snq; Mar 15, 2008 at 03:25 PM. Reason: .
Old Mar 15, 2008 | 04:59 PM
  #79  
pb and h's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 604
From: Lexington, SC
Here is something no one has mentioned but I often think about it:

Different gas stations will yield different results. I did not say different brands of gas which can if they have additives.

Next time you go to a gas station take a look at the layout. I have notice some are sloped up/down/side and some are even like parking on top of a triangle.

What does this mean? Think about it. the gas tank will be tilted in the direction that the car is sloped...........so, you may get more or less gas than the previous gas station.

Now, you need to take into account the temperature and/or the time of day you fill up as well. You want the gas which is in tanks in the ground to be cold and you will get the most gas(it will be more dense) flowing to the car. Usually, the mornings when the earth is cool is the best time for this. Also, you want to pump the gas at a slow to moderate rate. If you pump it fast then the gas spews in there and gets all frothy like a soda and will trigger the cut off too soon. If you don't believe me just fill up a glass of water quickly. Gas is very volatile unlike water.

Just some things to think about...........oh, don't fill up when the gas station is getting filled by the tanker truck(empty old tanks will have debris and may be passed to your gas tank).
 

Last edited by pb and h; Mar 15, 2008 at 05:02 PM.
Old Mar 16, 2008 | 08:40 AM
  #80  
senador's Avatar
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 33
From: CT
Also remember some people's commutes are on entirely flat ground where others have hills. Wind plays a huge factor on MPG with the Fit due to its shape. Also there are also a different formulations of gas in the united states as required by state clean air acts. Some of these reformulated gasolines will give you less mileage no matter what you do. Where You Live | Reformulated Gas | US EPA
 



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:57 AM.